The furore over 15-year-old American teen singing sensation Miley Cyrus' continues, after the Hannah Montana star apologised to her fans for a provocative photo of her taken by Annie Leibovitz for Vanity Fair magazine where she appears topless.
There's certainly nothing overtly sexual about the photo, but after reading the entire piece, and was a bit annoyed by interviewer Bruce Handy's comments:
"And though the pose was Annie Leibovitz's idea, the topless but demure portrait accompanying this article could be seen as another baby step, as it were, toward a more mature profile."
Why does she need to, a) pose half-naked or, b) worry about having a "more mature" profile? She's only 15 years old! And her parents were with her, so I'm not sure why they are trying to shuffle the blame on to the magazine.
"There's certainly nothing overtly sexual about the photo."
Utterly ridiculous.
Thanks to the Guardian, and you, for circulating this image, and for offering such edifying commentary.
Posted by: Don Quixote | Tuesday, 29 April 2008 at 11:44 AM
Oh, I see I have confused the Guardian with the Independent. Perhaps I can be forgiven; it is sometimes so hard to tell them apart.
This probably invalidates my remarks entirely.
Posted by: Don Quixote | Tuesday, 29 April 2008 at 11:47 AM
Are there any good examples left. Will we as society sell sexuality to anyone, even children. There are almost no good examples left and modesty is esoteric to the american family.
Posted by: Marcus Mormon | Tuesday, 29 April 2008 at 03:27 PM
Hmmm..the pose was Annie Leibovitz's idea, not Miley's. Perhaps that's why the blame shift is happening. Miley's parents left before this photo was taken, this does not exonerate them, because they should have seen it sometime. What I think happened is that at the time Miley thought the photos were artisic and beautiful, because they are it's just not what many would want a 15 year old girl doing. AT some point between February when the shoot happened and now, she began to realize it wasn't a good idea and has now become embarrassed by the pictures. I don't understand why she was going to be in Vanity Fair in the first place, it's certainly not where her current or future fan base lies.
Posted by: anotherweasley | Tuesday, 29 April 2008 at 03:39 PM
In my opionion, everyone involved is just seeing green.($$$) I feel sorry for Miley, the ones whom she loves and trust have really steered her in the wrong direction. And as far as for Vanity, they knew exactly what they were doing.
Posted by: Brenda Hughey | Tuesday, 29 April 2008 at 04:04 PM
As a photographer and filmmaker myself, I regard this photograph as great art from the heart. It carries a respect for the young body pictured. I see absolutely no abuse whatsoever, only in the dirty minds of critics and moneymakers. Shame on them, and I wish, and I believe, that Miley will be very proud of having been the subject of ms.Leibowitz's attention in some time to come.
Posted by: Amund Prestegard | Tuesday, 29 April 2008 at 05:06 PM
Whether this is a sexual image is surely a matter capable of question. No, this young girl is not exposing parts of her body that are the traditional erogenous zones, but she in clutching a blanket to protect those she is exposing flesh on her rear. I would suggest that it could portray a girl caught in bed by an intruder.
Whether Amund Prestegard likes it or not, a nude or part-nude is sexual as its mostly in a sexual context we see other naked bodies. Sexualising someone who is not legally capable of making a decision of that kind (a restriction which exists to protect them from being asked to do something by grown people who should know better) is not very clever, to say the least.
Posted by: Trevv | Tuesday, 29 April 2008 at 07:57 PM
yeah it is deliberately provocative and this time it has backfired because the USA is puritanical at its heart and this won't change - in fact it is the only thing that keeps it balanced and it is represented by the true American spirit that is good and true - they don't want to see half naked teenagers on their magazines. How Britney Spears has ended up says it all, disgusting!
Posted by: lorrie | Wednesday, 30 April 2008 at 12:11 AM
Adult market magazines using kids in provocative poses? Is that ONLY inappropriate behavior?
http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/04/leibovitz-and-hanna-montana-teardown.html
Adult executives know better. They just don’t DO better.
There is nothing innocent about an adult magazine portraying a 15 year old pretending to be naked, hair tousled, wrapped in a bed sheet
Posted by: PacificGatePost | Wednesday, 30 April 2008 at 08:10 AM
http://sinazen.com/miley collects many "exposures" of Miley Cyrus for those interested
Posted by: sinazen | Thursday, 01 May 2008 at 11:05 AM